Who is hungry though? The English is certainly ambiguous, with only context making it entirely clear. 'Bob said that Bruce said he was hungry.'Did Bob say that Bruce said Bruce was hungry or that Bob was hungry? Who is the 'he' referring to?

Latin normally gets around this problem by using 'se' as opposed to 'eum'.'se' is supposed to refer back to the original subject of the sentence.

On the other hand 'Dixit Robertus Brutum dixisse eum esurire' would seem to mean 'Bob said that Bruce said he (Bruce) was hungry.'

How set in stone is this rule though? I know I have seen instances in Latin of the se actually referring to the accusative subject rather than the original subject.

I have also seen 'ipsum' used to avoid ambiguity.

The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.

ptolemyauletes wrote:Latin normally gets around this problem by using 'se' as opposed to 'eum'.'se' is supposed to refer back to the original subject of the sentence....I know I have seen instances in Latin of the se actually referring to the accusative subject rather than the original subject.

See A&G §301e ("The reflexive may refer..."). It's ambiguous in Latin and English every which way here. That's why I wouldn't attempt to distinguish "se/eum" above. Can of worms. Unless you say "he, the first/second...last referred to", or someone else entirely by their name.

Yes, you're right... the rules (rules never work) are supposed to work one way, but as you say, even the rules are ambiguous on this point. As ever, context wins the day.

The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.